[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts

Hello,
Here is another idea for the mix,
but at first I need to answer this:
> On 12.02.2016, at 12:09, Jack <noc at kwaoo.net> wrote:
> 
…
> Let’s reap all useless IPv4.
I can claim any address as taken, so no point.
> You want to sell IPv4 ? Obviously, you do not need that subnet.
Because right now, it has value. If I strongly believe in v6, I sell everything not tight down.
> You do not announce that subnet over the internet ? Reaped.
There are reasons for unannounced space, even when in use, so no point.
> You want to transfert that subnet between two obviously not related
> compagny ? Reaped.
If one big client in at.isp got bought by de.bigcorp, and bigcorp is customer of de.acme, then I might need to transfer all the IPs over, as de.acme does not have enough space for migration. I might even get paid to do that.
Why not? Otherwise the client leaves me, and I fake the usage, so I can pick up new customers, and you don’t take the addresses away from me in the meantime.

> 
> As the Protector of the weaks, and to preserve viability of the
> newcommers, the RIPE-NCC *must not* allow people to make business on the
> back of the new.
That’s easy: next time we choose a payment plan, revert it back to address space.
Then every LIR with lots of unused space will sell it, because they would have something like negative interest rates on this “property”.
> IPv4 are a resource of common interest, not a plot of land that can be
> sell to the richer.
Right, but tight resources always lead to competition. We can choose how to regulate the competition.
Redistribution? Just take large allocations, and give it to new members?
As currently implemented, make it a trading good? Or make a controlled market, so RIPE-NCC has to fix the daily price as stock exchanges do? 
> Do not you think ?
> 
Thanks for the question. I like the idea of transparency. I doubt there is much really unused space anymore. So I would be interested how much space is already “double booked” with CGNAT, and how much space is still in tiny subnets?
So we need clear RIPE-DB info about that. 
Since trading is allowed to block a black market, I would rather see price transparency, than closed doors. That could get so far, if you try to buy space from your straw man, you would need to shell market price for it, since it is a transparent market.

This all can only slow down the desperate.
So the solution must be to have all government agencies converted to native v6, or require barrier free access to public network resources, so no IPv4 on any online shopping website, since it is a barrier for v6 only customers. I should be entitled to get my money back, when I’m not able to reach a v6 destination of my choice. This would eliminate v4 only eyeball networks. 

This are only ideas, but I want to make clear there are many other ways to make v4 not so attractive anymore. If some old ISPs really park unused space, they should pay higher fees, as this makes the work of RIPE-NCC harder, and forces the rest of the community to jump through any loophole they can find. Or even any of the more radical ideas.
I support the motion that one euro isn’t the same euro when dealing with London City Networks, or rural Moldova. So buying IPv4, especially if you have to build a network from refurbished or plain used equipment isn’t feasible.
And we can’t look at it so darwinistic “wrong business plan”, we would miss an opportunity, widening the digital divide, and increase the run to the large wealthy cities.

So please make v6 more attractive, or a plain requirement.
Matthias


-- 
UCND United City Network Development GmbH
Ungargasse 58/13
1030 Wien, Österreich

FN 188089b beim Handelsgericht Wien
UID ATU 54974906

Mag. Matthias Šubik
Hotline: +43 780 363636
Mobil.: +43 676 83820-787